Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.
We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.
Thanks!
Click here for the original OP:
Spoiler!
Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.
California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.
“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”
The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.
The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”
Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.
The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.
The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.
A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.
Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.
“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”
It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.
“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”
On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.
“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”
According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.
More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.
But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.
“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”
CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.
Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.
“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Ready to give to mass population. Biggest obstacle will be massive production. He said they are working on that as well. Seems very promising.
Bill Gates says he is already setting up 6 factories to help manufacture whatever vaccine gets to market and approval. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Bill Gates says he is already setting up 6 factories to help manufacture whatever vaccine gets to market and approval.
Way to go man. Here come the crazy people. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Bill Gates says he is already setting up 6 factories to help manufacture whatever vaccine gets to market and approval.
Yep.
Maybe he can set up some factories to pump out Remdesivir too. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Bill Gates says he is already setting up 6 factories to help manufacture whatever vaccine gets to market and approval.
Not to get political, but set those factories up in the US please. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
So the guys over at the IHME must have been doing cocaine and eating sugar because their ****ing update still hasn't come out.
He is on CNN now. Update will be published late tonight. [Reply]
Hamas, what do you know about This drug remdesivir? may be the real deal. Driving the Dow futures up
Here is my description of it from March 9, discussing potential therapies for COVID-19.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Remdesivir is the most likely candidate to be used based upon its mechanism of action and demonstrated activity against coronaviruses. It has already been used in compassionate use situations (where one can get around normal clinical trial hurdles) in Washington and China.
The original antiviral nucleoside analogues were based around other nucleosides, like thymidine or cytosine. Remdisivir is based around adenosine, which makes it a novel agent.
Originally Posted by TLO:
I'd also like to ask if it's a drug that we might have a decent stockpile of? I believe I've read where it's not currently all that readily available.
No, but it is a small molecule drug, so scaling up production is far easier than a biologic. With that said, most of those factories are going to be in India and China.
Here is a post from about five weeks ago with a description of how the trials will work and how one might analyze its efficacy.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You'd get increased rollout through compassionate exemptions fairly quickly, and broader approval in maybe 4-6 months, but that's a very rough guess based upon past history and other previously untreatable epidemics (AIDS). The closest analogue is probably AZT, which was approved in 1987, in record time (6 months). However, early doses were far too high and people who took it often suffered substantial side effects (cytopenias, mostly) from such large doses.
You'd need large urban or academic centers in most cases. Quick, accurate testing (without the substantially high false positive rates of the original tests), likely confirmed by CT, which appears to be the gold standard at this point.
Since there aren't other standards of care, you could treat against placebo, then see how patients did in comparison, but remember that in a disease with a small case fatality rate, marginal decreases would lead to statistically significant declines based upon how you interpret the data.
Here's an example: 1000 people get coronavirus and 970 live without remdisivir. 1000 people get coronavirus and 990 live with it. What's my relative risk reduction?
My event rate (death) is 3% in the control group and 1% in the experimental group. My absolute risk reduction is only 2%, but my relative risk reduction is (0.03-0.01)/(/0.03) is 66.7%, which means that I've reduced my risk of death by 2/3. Now, how many people do I need to treat to avoid 1 death? In that case, I take 1/absolute risk reduction, which is 1/(0.02), which is 50. Thus, for every 50 patients I treat with remdisivir, I prevent one excess fatality. That's pretty good from a pharmacoeconomic standpoint, but if you're treating millions of people, that's going to be a substantial financial outlay.
FWIW, remdesivir is a failed Ebola drug, but there is a fairly long history of failed agents being approved later for other indications. Two of the best examples are AZT (which I actually mentioned in a post above--it was developed at NIH in 1964 for cancer, shelved for 20+ years, then was the first anti-HIV therapy) and Viagra, which was originally indicated to treat pulmonary hypertension (and is still used for that in some cases). [Reply]
TLO 04-16-2020, 06:50 PM
This message has been deleted by TLO.
Reason: Actually I don't think that's right...
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Here is my description of it from March 9, discussing potential therapies for COVID-19.
No, but it is a small molecule drug, so scaling up production is far easier than a biologic. With that said, most of those factories are going to be in India and China.
Here is a post from about five weeks ago with a description of how the trials will work and how one might analyze its efficacy.
FWIW, remdesivir is a failed Ebola drug, but there is a fairly long history of failed agents being approved later for other indications. Two of the best examples are AZT (which I actually mentioned in a post above--it was developed at NIH in 1964 for cancer, shelved for 20+ years, then was the first anti-HIV therapy) and Viagra, which was originally indicated to treat pulmonary hypertension (and is still used for that in some cases).
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Here is my description of it from March 9, discussing potential therapies for COVID-19.
No, but it is a small molecule drug, so scaling up production is far easier than a biologic. With that said, most of those factories are going to be in India and China.
Here is a post from about five weeks ago with a description of how the trials will work and how one might analyze its efficacy.
FWIW, remdesivir is a failed Ebola drug, but there is a fairly long history of failed agents being approved later for other indications. Two of the best examples are AZT (which I actually mentioned in a post above--it was developed at NIH in 1964 for cancer, shelved for 20+ years, then was the first anti-HIV therapy) and Viagra, which was originally indicated to treat pulmonary hypertension (and is still used for that in some cases).
